Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you look at the numbers after taking the military funding out
Why should I take the military funding out? The study cited by the original poster didn't take the military funding out.
Quote:
It comes down to productivity and it has nothing to do with red or blue states.
Well, my argument was directed at the critics of red states.
Quote:
Some states are just not productive enough to support themselves.
California would certainly fit that bill. With a third of the nation's welfare recipients, I hate to think what would happen if the federal dollars were cut off.
Quote:
States with huge deficits are not taking in federal money to stay afloat.
Okay, name some red states running huge deficits. I'm trying to stay on topic here in this red-state bashing thread.
Quote:
They wouldn't have to issue these bonds if they didn't receive less money than they contribute to the fed.
And so we come back full circle to my original point: Red states with low populations have a disproportionately high number of military bases and Indian reservations that suck up federal dollars. They don't have a lot of industry to generate tax dollars to give to the federal government. They don't even have a lot of private land ownership in many cases. Look at Nevada. I understand 80% of its land is owned by the federal government. This is true generally speaking throughout the red state West.
As for the South, it has been doing a lot better than you suggest, with Boeing and major Japanese and German auto manufacturers setting up manufacturing plants. North Carolina (major high tech hub), Virginia (D.C. government, military), South Carolina (military), Texas (energy, agriculture, aerospace, high tech, trade), Lousiana (energy, agriculture, trade), Florida (tourism, international finance, aerospace), Alabama (aerospace), Georgia (Atlanta a dynamic center)....heck, you'd think the south was nothing but a bunch of hayseeds sitting on their porches collecting welfare checks from the way you describe it. But yeah, there is a big southern population on welfare, and I'm quite sure they are not voting for Republicans...
Last edited by dechatelet; 03-26-2015 at 12:42 AM..
So it's really the liberal states who are more dependent on the federal government?
Not even close. But it seems the latest excuse is the reason red states need more Federal money is because they don't have enough population to support themselves. That's a new one.
I did not suggest stopping the government agricultural payments because they provide enough money to keep people farming. If we had a real market system operating the price of food would reflect the true cost of production.
What bothers me is the recipients from the farmers to the machinery producers and the bankers will not admit they are supported by the government by taxation on the coasts.
Not even close. But it seems the latest excuse is the reason red states need more Federal money is because they don't have enough population to support themselves. That's a new one.
Is it that difficult to understand how population levels can affect this? For example I-80 runs from San Francisco to New York and is one of the main corridors for freight traveling coast to coast. I-80 runs through many low population rural states, per capita the federal government spends much more more money on that road in those states but that funding benefits the entire country in particular San Francisco and New York. Get it?
Is it that difficult to understand how population levels can affect this? For example I-80 runs from San Francisco to New York and is one of the main corridors for freight traveling coast to coast. I-80 runs through many low population rural states, per capita the federal government spends much more more money on that road in those states but that funding benefits the entire country in particular San Francisco and New York. Get it?
^^^^
This is the best explanation for some of the spending discrepancy. However, it doesn't explain everything. Much of the problem is that red states do not raise enough revenue (taxes) to support their entitlement programs independent of federal assistance. The vast majority of federal dollars flowing into those states is not spent on roads or other infrastructure. It's spent supporting their poor. It just is, and no amount of arguing about it will change that fact.
Conservative states need to make the same choice that blue states made a long time ago... Either reduce the subsidies for their low income populations, or increase taxes. But the notion that somehow people from my state (CO) should be paying for your problems is the antithesis of a sustainable solution. If Mississippi wants to under tax their population, then go for it. Just don't send the check our way...
No I wouldn't as repeatedly on these boards I have said I do not view 40 hours worked as sacred. If one needs more income, work a 2nd job or increase your skills so you can get higher pay..by earning it.
But stop the farm supports. They are welfare.
No, they aren't welfare. That's just left wing rhetoric. It allows them to claim "corporate welfare!" to uninformed people.
Farm supports are the government renting farmland. The government pays a farmer not to plant a field, essentially. They do this to avoid having the market flooded with food. We've seen the disastrous effects that wildly fluctuating oil prices have. Farm subsidies are an attempt by the government to avoid having the same thing happen in food.
Too much grain is produced this year and the bottom falls out on the price. Farmers can't sell their crops for a high enough price to make ends meet and last out the winter and go out of business. Next harvest too few farmers have survived the crash in grain prices last year to be around to plant enough grain to meet the demand this year, and instead food prices skyrocket. Some people can't afford to buy food, and others take up so much of their income buying it that they don't have enough disposable income left over for recreational nonessentials and entertainment, forcing those industries into mass layoffs. The nation plunges into a mass recession.
That's the sort of scenario that farm subsidies are designed to prevent.
You should educate yourself on what farm subsidies really are instead of just blindly accepting leftwing propaganda.
No, they aren't welfare. That's just left wing rhetoric. It allows them to claim "corporate welfare!" to uninformed people.
Farm supports are the government renting farmland. The government pays a farmer not to plant a field, essentially. They do this to avoid having the market flooded with food. We've seen the disastrous effects that wildly fluctuating oil prices have. Farm subsidies are an attempt by the government to avoid having the same thing happen in food.
Too much grain is produced this year and the bottom falls out on the price. Farmers can't sell their crops for a high enough price to make ends meet and last out the winter and go out of business. Next harvest too few farmers have survived the crash in grain prices last year to be around to plant enough grain to meet the demand this year, and instead food prices skyrocket. Some people can't afford to buy food, and others take up so much of their income buying it that they don't have enough disposable income left over for recreational nonessentials and entertainment, forcing those industries into mass layoffs. The nation plunges into a mass recession.
That's the sort of scenario that farm subsidies are designed to prevent.
You should educate yourself on what farm subsidies really are instead of just blindly accepting leftwing propaganda.
Yep. Kidkaos2 is right about this. Farm subsidies are the government manipulating the free market because often times we need that in order to support an economy as large as our own. More proof that the government serves a vital function in our society that cannot be replaced by business.
This is the best explanation for some of the spending discrepancy. However, it doesn't explain everything. Much of the problem is that red states do not raise enough revenue (taxes) to support their entitlement programs independent of federal assistance. The vast majority of federal dollars flowing into those states is not spent on roads or other infrastructure. It's spent supporting their poor. It just is, and no amount of arguing about it will change that fact.
Excuse me? When you are just considering welfare per capita the blue states top the list.
Excuse me? When you are just considering welfare per capita the blue states top the list.
Yeah, except we pay our own bills. We tax ourselves enough to pay for our infrastructure AND welfare. We send more money to the federal government than we take. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?
Yeah, except we pay our own bills. We tax ourselves enough to pay for our infrastructure AND welfare. We send more money to the federal government than we take. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?
I don't think your understanding.....
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
Last edited by Yac; 04-14-2015 at 07:56 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
